Will Ness
BTW could there be a use for something like
infixl 1 #
x # f = f x -- (#) = flip ($)
to have the direct data flow reflected in our code, so that your code would become
test = [] # (3:) # (8:) # (7:)
maybe sometimes it's more natural to think of data being "piped through" the chain of functions, and to write them down in forward, not reverse order of application?
I think, it's more natural to think in terms of functions, and often the argument to a function is not just something as simple as [] anyway. If you want to think in chaining instead of composition, you can use arrow sequencing (>>>) instead of function composition (.): import Control.Arrow test = (3:) >>> (8:) >>> (7:) $ [] Greets, Ertugrul. -- nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex) http://blog.ertes.de/